Maintaining a common nuisance in Indiana is a Level 6 felony under IC 35-45-1-5, filed against a property owner, landlord, or manager who knowingly or intentionally allows their building, vehicle, or other place to be used for certain drug, alcohol, or human trafficking offenses. A conviction carries six months to two and a half years in prison, with an advisory sentence of one year, and a fine of up to $10,000.1Indiana General Assembly. Indiana Code 35-45-1-5 – Visiting a Common Nuisance2Indiana General Assembly. Indiana Code 35-50-2-7 – Class D Felony; Level 6 Felony; Judgment of Conviction Entered as a Misdemeanor There is no misdemeanor version of the maintaining charge itself, though a court can later enter the conviction as a Class A misdemeanor in some cases.
What Property Use Triggers the Charge
The statute lists five activities that turn a place into a common nuisance when the owner knowingly or intentionally permits them:1Indiana General Assembly. Indiana Code 35-45-1-5 – Visiting a Common Nuisance
- Buying alcoholic beverages in violation of Indiana’s liquor laws.
- Unlawfully using, storing, or selling prescription-only (legend) drugs.
- Using, manufacturing, storing, selling, delivering, or financing the delivery of controlled substances or drug paraphernalia.
- Paying or agreeing to pay for a human trafficking victim or for acts performed by one.
- Committing human trafficking offenses at the location.
Drug activity is by far the most common basis for these charges. The statute does not create tiers based on quantity or scale: a small amount of a controlled substance and a large manufacturing operation both support the same Level 6 felony charge against the person maintaining the place.
Prostitution and gambling do not fall under this statute. Prostitution is handled through Indiana’s separate “indecent nuisance” framework in the property code, which has its own civil injunction process, and gambling offenses sit in a different chapter of the criminal code. If the allegations against your property involve drugs, legend drugs, illegal alcohol, or human trafficking, IC 35-45-1-5 is the one to focus on.
The Penalty and the Possible Reduction
A Level 6 felony in Indiana carries a sentencing range of six months to two and a half years, with a one-year advisory sentence, and a fine of up to $10,000.2Indiana General Assembly. Indiana Code 35-50-2-7 – Class D Felony; Level 6 Felony; Judgment of Conviction Entered as a Misdemeanor That exposure applies whether the underlying activity was small-scale or substantial.
Indiana courts have discretion to enter a Level 6 felony conviction as a Class A misdemeanor instead. For a first-time offender charged with maintaining a nuisance tied to limited drug activity, that reduction can be the difference between a felony record and a misdemeanor one, with downstream effects on employment, housing, and firearm rights.
The reduction is blocked in one specific situation: the court must enter the conviction as a felony if the defendant has a prior unrelated felony that was itself reduced to a misdemeanor within the past three years.2Indiana General Assembly. Indiana Code 35-50-2-7 – Class D Felony; Level 6 Felony; Judgment of Conviction Entered as a Misdemeanor Otherwise, the decision rests on the circumstances of the offense, criminal history, and the court’s assessment of the defendant.
Civil Abatement Can Run Alongside the Criminal Case
Criminal prosecution is not the only exposure. Indiana’s property code lets neighbors, county attorneys, and city or town attorneys file civil actions to abate or enjoin a nuisance property.3Indiana General Assembly. Indiana Code 32-30-6-7 – Nuisance Actions; Plaintiffs; Attorneys A neighbor whose property or personal enjoyment is harmed by the nuisance has standing to sue; so does the local government. If a county, city, or town wins, it recovers reasonable attorney’s fees. A property owner who successfully defends can recover costs and attorney’s fees as well.
These civil cases often move faster than the criminal prosecution because the standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. A court can order the property closed, restrict how it is used, or impose operating conditions while the criminal charges are still pending. A neighbor does not have to wait for a conviction to file. That means an owner facing a maintaining charge can be defending two proceedings at once, and statements made in one can affect the other.
Defenses That Actually Work
The strongest defenses attack the knowledge element the state has to prove, or the quality of the evidence tying illegal activity to the property.
The Built-In Marijuana Defense
The statute itself contains a defense for maintaining charges when the offense involves only the use or possession of less than 30 grams of marijuana and the property owner had no reason to know about it. Subsection (d) sets out the specific conditions, but the core idea is that truly minor, concealed marijuana use by a tenant or guest can shield a landlord who exercised ordinary diligence.
No Knowledge of the Activity
Because the charge requires that the owner acted “knowingly or intentionally,” an owner who had no actual awareness of the illegal activity and no reason to suspect it has a real defense.1Indiana General Assembly. Indiana Code 35-45-1-5 – Visiting a Common Nuisance Documentation matters here. Written lease clauses prohibiting illegal activity, records of property inspections, prompt responses to neighbor complaints, and cooperation with law enforcement all cut against the prosecution’s effort to prove knowledge through circumstantial evidence like repeated police calls or visible drug traffic. An owner who ignored obvious warning signs will struggle to claim ignorance. One who took concrete steps and was genuinely blindsided will have a much stronger argument.
Weak Evidence Tying Activity to the Property
The state has to prove the illegal activity actually occurred at the specific property. Challenging witness reliability, chain of custody for physical evidence, or the accuracy of surveillance can create reasonable doubt when the link between the activity and the location is thin.
Suppression of Unlawfully Obtained Evidence
If police entered without a valid warrant, exceeded the scope of a warrant, or conducted a warrantless search that fits no recognized exception, a motion to suppress can remove the evidence from the case. Losing key evidence this way can collapse the prosecution. Indiana courts apply both federal Fourth Amendment doctrine and the state constitution’s protections against unreasonable searches, and the state provision sometimes reaches further.
Third-Party Conduct
Owning the property is not enough on its own. When tenants or guests conducted the illegal activity without the owner’s knowledge or consent, the owner can argue the state has not connected their knowledge to the ongoing activity. This defense is strongest when paired with proof of prevention efforts: lease provisions, eviction proceedings started after discovery, and complaints the owner made to police about the tenant.
What to Do If You’re Facing This Charge
Response time is short. If you receive notice of a criminal investigation or a civil abatement complaint, missing a hearing or failing to respond can produce a default judgment and an injunction entered without your input. Because criminal and civil proceedings can run in parallel, anything you say in one can surface in the other, and early counsel is the single biggest factor in protecting both tracks.
For owners who have not yet been charged but are worried about a tenant’s conduct, the preventive steps are the same ones that later serve as defense evidence: explicit anti-drug and anti-criminal-activity clauses in leases, documented inspections, written responses to complaints, and prompt eviction proceedings when illegal use comes to light. These records are what separate the owner who “should have known” from the one who did everything a reasonable owner could do.